Russel vs.

Vestil 304 SCRA 738

FACTS:
- On September 28, 1994, petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents,
denominated "DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION," with the Regional Trial Court of
Mandaue City, Branch 56, docketed as Civil Case No. MAN 2275
- The complaint, in substance, alleged that petitioners are co-owners of that parcel of
land, Lot 6149 situated in Liloan, Cebu and containing an area of 56,977.40 square
meters, more or less.
- The land was previously owned by the spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho.
- Upon the death of said spouses, the property was inherited by their legal heirs, herein
petitioners and private respondents.
- The lot had remained undivided until petitioners discovered a public document
denominated "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS
ORAL AGREEMENT OF PARTITION," executed on June 6, 1990.
- By virtue of this deed, private respondents divided the property among themselves to
the exclusion of petitioners who are also entitled to the said lot as heirs of the late
spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho.
- Petitioners claimed that the document was false and perjurious as the private
respondents were not the only heirs and that no oral partition of the property whatsoever
had been made between the heirs.
- The complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void and an order be
issued to partition the land among all the heirs.
- On November 24, 1994, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value
of the subject land is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
as amended by R.A. No. 7691, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Liloan, Compostela.
- Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss saying that the Regional Trial
Court has jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation within the contemplation of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129, as amended.
- On January 12, 1995, the respondent judge issued an Order granting the Motion to
Dismiss.
- A Motion for Reconsideration of said order was filed by petitioners on January 30, 1995
alleging that the same is contrary to law because their action is not one for recovery of
title to or possession of the land but an action to annul a document or declare it null and
void, hence, one incapable of pecuniary estimation failing within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court. Private respondents did not oppose the motion for reconsideration.
- On February 13, 1995, the respondent judge issued another Order denying the motion
for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
W/n the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. MAN-2275.
HELD:
- The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is doubtless one incapable of
pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said court.
- In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of
pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature

of the principal action or remedy sought.

- If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts
of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim.
- However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by
courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).
- It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and
is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted
therein.
- WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Order
dismissing Civil Case No. MAN-2275, as well as the Order denying the motion for
reconsideration of said Order, is SET ASIDE.